HAE v. MAXAM

The injunction that defendants allegedly disobeyed was not clear and unequivocal enough to warrant a contempt finding ( see e.g. Gerelli Ins. Agency, Inc. v Gerelli, 23 AD3d 341; Howard S. Tierney, Inc. v James, 269 App Div 348, 354-355). "At best, the order . . . was ambiguous" ( Lubitz v Mehlman, 187 AD2d 97, 103, lv dismissed 82 NY2d 705), and "[a]ny ambiguity in the court's mandate should be resolved in favor of the would-be contemnor" ( Richards v Estate of Kaskel, 169 AD2d 111, 122, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 78 NY2d 1042).